ObamaCare In One Sentence

Loading

Couldn’t of said it better myself:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdnY8r7_fLw[/youtube]

Andrew Malcolm:

It’s by Dr. Barbara Bellar, a motor-scooter-riding animal lover, Army veteran and Republican attorney who’s taking on a massive challenge of the Chicago political machine for a state Senate seat to combat the fiscal insanity in Barack Obama’s adopted home state, which isn’t an easy job, as you might imagine, so she made this hilarious homemade video that captures the colossal stupidity of ObamaCare in one (very long) sentence, like this one.

Support her campaign here.

Meanwhile a great post at The Constitution Club asking a few questions:

Let’s begin with a multiple choice question: If insurance companies are forced to offer health insurance to people with pre-existing conditions, which of the following must occur?

1. People with pre-existing conditions pay higher premiums due to increased risk to the insurers.

2. People without pre-existing conditions pay higher premiums – subsidizing those with pre-existing conditions.

3. The government (taxpayers) subsidizes the premiums of people with pre-existing conditions.

4. Insurance companies bear the cost of the added risk.

Not sure? Let’s try the process of elimination:

Should an accident-prone driver pay the same premiums as does an accident-free driver – especially if being able to do so causes the safe driver’s premiums to increase? (Assume you’re the safe driver.) Should the taxpayers subsidize his accidents? If you were the insurance company, should you be forced to absorb losses because you’re forced to offer the same coverage for the same cost to accident-prone drivers?

Or, this: Should you pay higher premiums for a life insurance policy – because, built into your premium is the cost of your insurer selling life insurance to someone who is terminally ill? Should American taxpayers subsidize the life insurance premiums of terminally ill people? Were this to be a reality – every terminally ill person in the country would buy life insurance before they die, would they not?

If your answer is “Yes!” to these questions, I can’t help you – but thanks for stopping by. If, on the other hand, your answer is “Hell no!” then you obviously not only understand the concept of risk pools – you also understand that wealth redistribution is the cornerstone objective of ObamaCare – whether the ever-disingenuous O will admit it or not. (He won’t.)

It is the ONLY objective of ObamaCare. Hell, even a Democrat business owner knows that:

Democratic Senate candidate Bob Kerrey said Thursday that he hates the employer mandate in the Affordable Care Act and that his own businesses might drop employee insurance and pay the federal fine for doing so if the mandate goes into effect in 2014…

Kerrey said wealthy Americans pay their fair share in taxes. And he said President Barack Obama made a big mistake by not following the recommendations of his own bipartisan budget deficit commission.

“I hate the employer mandate,” Kerrey said. “I think it’s going to have a counterproductive impact. We don’t have any (insured employee) that costs us less than $7,000 (a year), and the fine’s $2,000. We’ll dump ’em off. We won’t call it dumping, we’ll say … ‘Go get it from the exchange.’”

And that is exactly what Obama and his fellow Socialist pals wanted. Business owners sending the masses to government run exchanges.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
8 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Tell this all to Romney, since he seems to support some features of Obama Care, in isolation, without paying for it—for now.

I am confused about something.
If I cause an auto accident today, my present auto insurer is responsible for all costs associated with that accident, even if I change insurers tomorrow. Even if some of the medical claims of the injured parties don’t show up until much later, the insurer at the time of the accident remains liable.
So if I develop a medical condition today, why isn’t my present insurer liable for all costs associated with that condition, even if I change insurers tomorrow?

Before ”the time for debate is over,” from Obama (I won) who simply forced through his ObamaCare via ALL Dem votes, there were many voices in the Senate and House about how there were some good parts in ObamaCare, but much of it was worthless, and expensive.
And also that even with all the excess costs, many important reforms were left out altogether.
So, Romney isn’t coming in late.
He joins a chorus of many from before the ramming of ObamaCare into law that it’s good parts were worthy of being enacted and some other things, not part of it are as well.
Romney/Ryan are for another RR: Repeal and Reform medical insurance issues.

@liberal1(objectivity):
Wrong is wrong no matter which idiot is for the stuff in Obama-care. Not everyone casting a vote for Romney will be voting for Romney; most of us will be voting against Obama.

@liberal1(objectivity):

I’m interested in seeing why you think Obamacare is good law, that will improve the lot of all Americans, Lib1.

Let’s see if you can do that without resorting to changing the subject, as you are wont to do.

@liberal1(objectivity): Wrong as usual, Romney will repeal 0-blamacare.

(Loved the video!)

Actually, your car, life and home insurance does to some degree divide up some their costs to all people in your demographic groups (age, where you live and work etc..) even if you are a safe driver, live healthy, reside in an area relatively free from natural disasters, etc… As did health insurance prior to Obamacare.

It is the “high risk” category that Obamacare forces the insurance companies to cover with everyone else. Now again, some of those high risk costs will be passed on to others insured, but depending on the level of risk, the high risk individual will pay higher premiums and the insurance companies will always try to get out of paying if possible, and may cancel the policies of people that continually cost them too much money. That’s how insurance traditionally works. We all know that.

The problem is how to deal with: (1) High risk individuals. (2) People with preexisting conditions. And (3) People who are uninsured for whatever reason (poverty, refusal to carry insurance, etc.)

Obama’s double standards seem intact.
Any other employee of government who violates the Hatch Act is TERMINATED.
But Obama is keeping Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/12/white-house-sebelius-unlikely-to-be-punished-for-violating-hatch-act/